"We know where the people of Maryland stand, and legislators need to listen to their constituents," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "If they don't, we're here to help hold them accountable."

The national group says it will form a political action committee in Maryland with the aim of ousting Republicans who "abandon the party position," Brown said. Money also will flow to Democrats who vote against the same-sex marriage bill, he said.

The only legislator specifically in NOM's crosshairs so far is Sen. Allan H. Kittleman of Howard County. He was the lone Republican senator to vote in favor of the bill.

Brown said NOM will be closely watching how Republican delegates vote.

House Republicans decided as a group to take a caucus position againts same-sex marriage, and leaders of the minority party say they believe each of their 43 members will vote against the bill.

Brown said NOM has a perfect record when it comes to defeating Republicans who support gay marriage.

"Every Republican we've ever targeted, we've defeated," he said. The group helped oust four Republicans, in California, Minnesota and New Hampshire, he said.

Brown said the National Organization for Marriage has been working behind the scenes in Maryland, contacting more than 500,000 voters through the mail or phone calls. The group urges those voters to call their legislators.

According to lawmakers, they've been doing so in large numbers. Several delegates said during today's floor debate that they had never heard from so many people on a single issue.

NOM is a house of cards 80% supportted by 5 major donors. They
are incapable of stopping marriage
equality in the long term not because
of a narrow donor base, but because
they simply don't have a rational
argument that can stand up in court.
Just a matter of time. So now they
desperately issue threats.

The rational argument is simple. When two man can produce a baby, they can get married. Same for two women. Until then, they can be in whatever kind of a relationship they want but it isn't a marriage.

how is this any different then bribing a state official? I mean is NOM really that scared of losing that they have to bribe the politicians to win this. This just shows even more that NOM has no REAL reason to not have marriage equality

A MILLION DOLLARS just to stop a couple of gays doing a ceremony to say they are married. WTF, get real! It's a fricking marriage bill, not "Let the gays take over the world" bill. Save the money for something that has an actual purpose, like helping the homeless. Money wasted on pitiful arguments of religion and purpose, is not cool. USE THE MILLION FOR SOMETHING GOOD! Stop being THICKHEADS and using it to fight gays, jez

It is just DISGUSTING that NOM can wield this sort of power to disenfranchise an entire group of people from enjoying civil rights...I seriously wonder if Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown had relatives in the KKK and or owned slaves...apparently old habits die hard

The same thing can be said for Emmett Burns who so kindly sent me a message saying that in his opinion gay marriage is not a civil right. How convenient that an office that he couldn't have held not that long ago he is now using to discriminate against another minority. Funny that he didn't mind "those gays" when they were standing up for HIS rights. As someone else so eloquently said, in the history books he will not be remembered fondly. He will be an embarrassment to future generations.

You'd think these self-described Christians would spend all those millions on things like feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and helping the downtrodden. But for whatever reason they believe God's calling for them is to stop government from giving basic protections to gay couples. What a bizarre worldview.

The time is coming when bigots
whether they are politicians or
wear a cleric's collar can no longer
derive their power nor live with their
foot on the throat of the LGBT
community. Too bad for bigots.-

Maryland is on the verge of joining a growing list of states that grant same-sex couples the right to a Civil Marriage license. The three Catholic bishops who have ecclesial jurisdiction in Maryland have issued a statement against allowing same-sex couples that civil right, “We urge Maryland Catholics throughout the state to act at once to make your voices heard.”

Let us consider the arguments the bishops posit against same-sex Civil Marriage. They state, “We believe such a change would lead to the erosion of the family, our society's most valued and important social unit.” The rejoinder to this “belief” is the question, “How?” The bishops fail to explain how same-sex marriage will “erode” the family.

They go on to state, “The measure would dismantle our state's legal recognition of the true procreative nature of marriage,” again, how? Not all heterosexual marriages result in procreation. No post-menopausal woman could legally marry, if the bishop's argument was taken to its logical conclusion.

In Catholic theology, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples that are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why can’t two people of the same gender?

The bishops go on to state, “As a result, the measure would jeopardize the religious freedom of all those who cannot in good conscience recognize marriages that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

This statement is false. Maryland, like all the fifty states recognizes a couple’s legal right to obtain a divorce and then to remarry. Legal divorce and remarriage is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Divorced and remarried couples are believed to be living in adulterous relationships by the very bishops who make this statement. The fact that there is legal divorce in all fifty states, with a right to a second, third, fourth, etc Civil Marriage, is not viewed as an attack on religious freedom by Catholic bishops. Why then, are Same-sex marriages singled out as an “attack on religious freedom” while divorce and remarriage (i.e. adulterous marriages) are not?

The Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, is a Catholic and has said that he will sign the bill into law when it reaches his desk. House Speaker Michael Busch, also a Catholic, is planning to vote for the bill and Senate President Thomas Miller a Catholic, held off a filibuster that would have effectively killed the bill.

The issue here is not morality; but rather, power. The bishops are attempting to flex their political muscle and intimidate politicians. The problem for the bishops is that according to Gallup Poll, 62% of Catholics recognize same-sex relationships as morally valid. Then again, the overwhelming majority of Catholics have no problem with using artificial birth control, despite the bishop’s prohibition of such practices. One can only hope that these Catholics heed their bishop’s advice and make their voices heard on this issue “at once.” Although I think the bishops may not like what they hear.

It is time for the bishops to move away from a model of Church focused on political, economic and social power. When the Vatican pressured the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon, Portugal to oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage in that country, he answered that it was a matter of Civil Law and not Church Law.

This is the central point here. We live in a pluralistic society. Not everyone is required to share the same religious beliefs or, views. The Founders deliberately did not establish a State Religion for the United States of America. That does not endanger religious freedom it protects it.

Maryland is not republican country. We're educated. We understand the constitution (because we can read) and we know that there is no place in the constitution that gives the majority the right to vote on the rights of minorities. I suggest before you waste $1,000,000 on bringing down your own bretheren that you admit defeat in your campaign of hate. NOM is a hate-group as defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Just the type of people God loves to send to hell for all eternity. Rock on haters!

Straight relationships and same sex relationships are different. If same sex partners want to get married they need to think more about becoming straight, because that is what will always be considered normal and totally acceptable.

Wow. I could never understand why a group that claims to protect children and families is wasting money trying to harm children and families. Such absurd, bizarre behavior. What will Maggie and Brian do when one of there own comes out of the closet??? What do they tell the children of gay couples "Oh, sorry precious. Yours is not a family. So sorry". What fools.

What the heck is the National Organization for Marriage and why does it exist? Can I form the National Organization for Dinner because I like dinner and spend my time hating people who eat fast food for dinner because they cheapen the dinner experience for all of us? All kidding aside, we should be saddened by the fact that someone has nothing better to dedicate their lives and a million dollars to than being angry at something that doesn't impact their lives one bit.

I am fascinated by the way people use reproduction as a litmus for marriage. By that logic, all older people who get married or those that have known sterility issues or even those that choose not to have children are automatically condemned to second class citizenship and should not be allowed to get married either.

The mouth breeders don't keep up with scientific advancements that allow anyone to be a parent. It's been over 100 years since Darwin and they still don't believe in evolution. They're not smart enough to come up with a coherent argument that supports their "marriage is for straights only" position. They need change to be forced upon them. If we lived in their world we'd all wear sandals and pick up the poop our horse would leave on the road to work.

NOM, Maggie Gallagher, and Brian Brown will be remembered in history in exactly the manner that they deserve to be. One day, their photos will be in history books next to the KKK and all the others. History's good that way. It tends to present the truth about people. (Although if Maggie's latest TV appearance is any indicator, she will need a double-page spread just for all of her chins.)

However, it is most unfortunate that it is their own children who will pay the price for the sins of NOM, Maggie Gallagher, and Brian Brown.

This bill may not be about gay/homosexual people taking over the world... but it is about influence and normalization. People involved in same-gender sexual relationships want to be seen as similar to a man and woman, especially in two areas: adoption and foster care (altruistic homosexuals want to have families) and taxation (the marriage credit is significant). They also want to influence culture into legitimizing them in media and beyond.

These changes might not amount to "gays taking over the world", but it is about changing people, who might feel gay marriage is inappropriate but who also don't want to be called hatemongers. I love all people (at least I hope that’s how people see me). However, when a person acts a certain way, and s/he asks me to support him or her, I must consider the moral implications of the action, not just the need for civility. Is same-sex marriage moral? It depends on your frame of reference. The frame for most Marylanders is that marriage is more than an agreement primarily focused on pleasure. Sex without any possibility of procreation is inherently selfish, from my perspective. That’s why marriage was created: for love between adults (both of whom often must sacrifice selflessly) and a loving environment for children.

That’s why NOM sounds like a group I can support.

For those who wonder about procreation as a litmus test for marriage, I think it's deeper than that. Even if a man and woman can't have kids, they are still a reflection of the way marriages should connect both genders in selfless love. The union is for selfless growth. In some ways, that's true of most good relationships, but sex is for marriage... that's why there are stipulations to the agreement/covenant.

Apparently, according to this mailer, NOM thinks gays make toy babies cry.

NOM is getting ready to buy either this legislative vote or the referendum with millions and millions of dollars. And then they'll leave our state as fast as they came in without a wave good buy or a care as to the mess and divide they've created.

I lived in Boston when the marriage debate was going on in Massachusetts. Today, not a single anti-gay marriage lawmaker is still in office because they were voted out or retired because their poll numbers were awful. Once marriage equality is achieved, a majority of people pay no attention to it because the sun still rises, the milk doesn't spoil, and people realize that legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no effect on them.

I respect the rights of those who oppose a law allowing civil unions. The majority of the opposition seems to defer to the fact that same sex couples cannot reproduce and therefore the marriage is not real. Another view, it is a choice. Well, if this is a choice, and I choose to live out my life with a person of the same sex and should NOT be entitled to the same benefits that a married man and woman are entitiled to, then there should be some changes to taxes and insurance. It is a heterosexuals CHOICE to have children. As previously stated, I cannot reproduce, so therefore am not adding to size of my community. Why should I pay school tax? Why should I pay for your children to go to school? After all, this was YOUR choice not mine.

Also, I am a catholic. However, religious views have NO place in politics. I am not saying to abandon your beliefs or sense of morality, but rather allow changes and adaption of laws occur to benefit ALL citizens.

What would have happened if our soldiers had turned their backs and ran from their duties instead of doing what was best for our country?

Those Maryland delegates have freedom today due to those soldiers who fulfilled their obligations so thoroughly that many gave their lives. The idea that any one of these "freedom" loving delegates in Maryland would permit NOM to intimidate them from casting a vote to pass this appropriate legislation.

Here is something you folks have not been discussing. What about Failure to Fix the Family: Perhaps the main tragedy in accommodating (homosexual) behaviors caused by social and family disorders is that we never get the motivation to fix these things. Consider how many fathers would have more seriously considered being present more of the time and would have considered developing more workable relationships with their wives and sons if they had ONLY known that it could make such a fundamental difference in a child’s outcome. Consider how many more mothers would have been less emotionally dependent upon their sons and would have insured that their sons had access to a non-abusive man to show them how to grow up to be a man, if they ONLY had known. And consider how many more parents would have been more protective if ONLY they had known what was relevant and how to protect. And similarly for female outcomes. We expend extraordinary amounts of time and money in teaching our young how to rise to the complex level of civilization that we now enjoy, and generally find that where we don’t teach, the young don’t learn. Why would it not make sense, then, that we as humans must also take the time to teach our young in the areas of masculinity and femininity and their accompanying sexualities?

Please don't waste readers' time with the antiquated "born that way" argument. The gene theory collapsed many years ago when it was disproved, and the involved researcher decided to no longer back his own research. Just google up "gay gene hoax." And, also lookup the American Psychological Society's position on sexual orientation where you will find that environmental contributions to causation are acknowledged.

We are at a crossroads where we can do a lot of good by guiding persons as to more of their parenting responsibilities, or do a lot of harm by remaining in denial..

Frank, correct me if I am wrong. You are arguing that the government should not give marriage rights to couples that cannot produce offspring by having intercourse with one another? Or that the term 'marriage' does not apply to their relationship? Or something else entirely? I'd be curious to find out.

The continuous lies that NOM throws at gay people do more to tear apart families and lower the self-esteem of LGBT people than what they could be doing to lift up this society. They could encourage the healthy growth of Gay and Lesbian couples. They could reinforce family values to ALL families. Instead they and many conservative churches continue to bash and batter my whole community. It is the horrible actions of people who clearly employ fear instead of the Love that their religious philosophy they say they embrace. No wonder Gays and Lesbians have only bad things to say about religious. I hope people in the the gay community are pissed off enough to cough up 5 million dollars to counter the influence of this out of state money.

NOM--as a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, you cross the line here. You're going to go after Republicans who don't tout the line and help Democrats who did, but say nothing about the Democrats who passed the bill?! You're not worth the paper your organizational paperwork was filed with. Absolutely disgusting. If you wanted to help then you would've funded the referendum effort.

This will turn out to be the best thing for Senator Kittleman. Having these unabashed bigots targeting him will draw the intelligent, sophisticated voters of Maryland to rally around him. He will be invincible! Stick that in your soup and suck it, NOM!

Thank you for your comment Harland R. I am relieved...since MAN WROTE YOUR RELIGION..NOT GOD... You see...since the bible is one of the best selling books ever I find it hard that he could resist the urge to pen more novels of tales and lore ;)

Brian is the leader of the hateful bullies. Just because they were successful in getting some fair minded judges out, now NOM thinks they force people accountable to their way of thinking with threats. how Christian is that?

I hate that everything in this country goes back to the all mighty dollar.

I am sure that if I said to the president: hey, here is a check for the national deficit, but in return you have to allow gay marriage in all 50 states to be legal, you know that they would take it. Because nearly none of out politicians work in any of our best interests; they follow the money.

They are not concerned about doing the right thing, they are concerned about who they are going to piss off and is it going to affect their check book.

I am so sick of people saying that gays can't get married because we cant reproduce, so what, there are thousands and thousands of couples that can't by choice or naturalness. Time to grow up and find another reason!

I really think that a lot of people forget where they came from. African American's had no freedom, women couldn't vote, opposite races couldn't marry and so on! Where would you be now and how would you feel if those laws and more where still in effect.

What would you do if the majority voted that all married couples couldn't divorce, after all, we want to secure the sanctity of marriage, would you still be confident that majority wins, NO, because you should have the right to marry and divorce as you wish, as should gays.

this is a simple questions of basic equality. Wake up and smell the roses, we are ALL AROUND YOU! We are not a mistake, we are not going away! and we are NOT converting straight people into turning gay, we were born this way!

Civil unions are not enough, we want it all! and we deserve it! We work, raise our families, pay our taxes and live the same life as everyone else. There is no difference between you and I, except for who i go to sleep with at night, which is non of your damn business anyway!

The truth is, that if I wanted to go out and get married tomorrow to a complete stranger, I can.... it's called Vegas. NOM would rather I marry a complete stranger as long as it is the opposite sex, so that they can " preserve the sanctity of marriage" rather than me marring the man I love, whom by the way, i have been together for probably longer than most peoples average marriage.

So i propose a truce. I wont push gay rights, equality, and the right to marry, if tomorrow NOM pushes for a bill that says DIVORCE IS NOW ILLEGAL, NO MORE DIVORCE.

If i can't marry the man I love, then you can't divorce the man/women you hate!

Emile Durkheim wrote that religion reflects society. I will conveniently overlook that because there are things in the spirit realm we do not understand. Spirits indwelling people- both Christian spirits and non-Christian spirits, and people being changed in ways that can be seen.

I know gay people do not convert anyone to homosexuality, I believe it happens and it is a permanent condition. And in this society people pay dearly for it. I think nobody for volunteer for it like they volunteer to be Christians. But my compatriots do not agree. As they believe orientation is no more fixed than the color of the pants you or I put on, any counseling to other homosexuals would automatically be seen as conversion. Sorry.

Obviously I think for myself... I hope your legal rights come to pass. I think it is a basic happiness issue and the opponents want to deny that. Meanies, I think.

My husband and I can not have children but are a heterosexual couple. Frank do you mean to tell me that he and I are NOT married because we can't have children and that is the RATIONAL definition of marriage?
Frank's comment - "The rational argument is simple. When two man can produce a baby, they can get married. Same for two women. Until then, they can be in whatever kind of a relationship they want but it isn't a marriage."

Marriage is a religious sacrement. Why is it constitutional to endorse religious rituals? Maryland, an especially secula and liberal state, is now attempting to enact a law approving of a religious rite. In addition, it is a biased law in that it only recognizes a Judeo-Christian religious rite. What about Islam or Hindu marriages that can be to multiple partners? Recognizing marriage is unconstitutional on both the separation of church and state and also on the discrimination of persons because of their creed.

This can be remedied by simply calling it a civil union, but not a marriage.

Those who insist on a marrage should find a faith who accepts them, and not try to force their religious desires on the rest of us.

Today, I received a robo call (actually a 'robo call' in the form of a push poll) from 'Brian Brown' of NOM. After the phone call, I followed the advice he gave above - I contacted all three of my state delegates, urging them to support S.B. 116.

Reject the out of state bigots. Let them troll in the sewers of their own states. Marylanders have proven time and time again that we are intelligent, progressive people that support all of our citizens equal rights and not succumb to the bigotry and ignorance of others.

One of NOM’s key arguments against gay marriage is that the main purpose, if not the sole purpose of marriage is for procreation. Yet, we all know elderly couples who get married yet can’t procreate. We all know people who physically are incapable of procreating. Do we call their marriages shams because they can’t have kids? No. We celebrate with them in their love for each other. That really is what marriage is about.

More importantly one’s ability to procreate is not a legally valid constraint to marriage in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court has stated its case very firmly on the matter.

In more than 14 cases the Supreme Court has said that marriage is one of the most basic and fundamental rights of citizens. In 1978 the Court held unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from remarrying. Then in 1987, the Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a law in Missouri that prevented felons from marrying. Missouri reasoned imprisoned felons are unable to have physical contact with spouses. As such they could not further the purposes of marriage for procreation.

Each case was rejected by the Court. To Wisconsin the Supreme Court said that "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals". To Missouri it said that even for imprisoned felons marriages were constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment.” and rejected that an ability to procreate was a necessary purpose of marriage.

Under the Constitution marriage to the person of one's choosing cannot be constrained by law -- or so says the Supreme Court. It matters not the racial makeup of the couple, whether they can procreate, how rich they are, what religion they are, if they are handicapped, etc. In the same manner, gays cannot be constrained from marrying the person of their choosing.

Voting for gay marriage in Maryland is the right thing to do. It is the just thing to do. It is the constitutional thing to do. Gays have been denied their rights under the Constitution long enough.

2. Why is a person allowed to create a business contract with another of the same sex? Isn't a civil marriage accomplishing the same thing - just for personal and not business reasons?

3. If the bill fails in MD during referendum, will NOM be involved after the vote? Or will they just move on to another state? What has their track record been in other states where they have spent millions to effect the vote?

4. Why do people not realize that no matter how this vote turns out, people will still be gay, gay people will still raise children, gay people will still fight for their rights, and gay people will still have to fight inequalities?

This bill can potentially help so many people. There is no benefit by voting no.

I have been reading these comments people have been leaving and the one that really struck me wrong is this one -------> "The rational argument is simple. When two man can produce a baby, they can get married. Same for two women. Until then, they can be in whatever kind of a relationship they want but it isn't a marriage." <---- This is so stupid because my fiance is a woman just as I am and she has a child from a former relationship and the male from that relationship is not even around to take care of the life he created and now on the other hand I am a woman and no I did not create the child but I take care of her and so does her mother. the child has us and the male doesnt even give two craps about unlike us and we have to be incomplete because we are not hetrosexual.It's so dumb that we live in america and we cant even have freedom. I want to marry my fiance and complete our family. why is it ok for two disfunctional hetrosexual people to get married but not ok for two perfectly functional homosexual people to get married only because we can't have children by each other?? When there is sperm donars and things like that .... we will still be giving the government more money than a hetrosexual couple no mater which way we turnnnnn.

Every Marylander who believes in equality should contact his/her delegate TODAY to express support for this bill. Call, e-mail, fax.....whatever. Make your voice heard. It's about doing what's right. End the hate and intolerance. I might be an old heterosexual married Christian grandmother, but I am passionate about this issue. A gay couple has exactly the same right to happiness that I have. If someone has a religious problem with that, it is a personal issue, and should not be a matter of state. Tell your delegate!

The argument is simple. In the history of the entire human race, there has never been a society that reconized marriage between two same sex couples. Even is societies where homosexuality was accepted, i.e. Greece and Rome, marriage was understood to be between a a man and a woman. That's how we were created that's how it is. This shouldn't even be an issue. You weren't born that way, there is no gene that makes you that way. Maybe you should look into what influence was put on you to be homosexual. Every homosexual that I know and have met and talked to, and they are very large in number, was sexually abused or inapprpraiately touched. Sounds like someone made a decision for them. I know , I know you are going to freak out and scream and cry, but think about it. And be honest with yourself!

Learn some history. Marriage didn't officially become a sacrament until the 16th century. Historically speaking, that's very recently. It wasn't until the high middle ages that Christianity even became involved heavily into marriage. Initially it was only to bless the unions. Before that, if two people and their families considered themselves married, they were. In short, Christianity co-opted marriagel

Then later, the state got involved more and more because it used marriage to regulate society and gave thousands of physical benefits to couples. That's why all that counts is the marriage license. You don't need any religious involvement at all. Your wedding can be in front of a judge or justice of peace for example.

Think about what you said Eric, "Sex without any possibility of procreation is inherently selfish, from my perspective... Even if a man and woman can't have kids, they are still a reflection of the way marriages should connect both genders in selfless love."

So you'll accept a false "reflection" of your standard for marriage? I think allowing "inherently selfish" straight couples to marry and denying gays the same rights is the selfish position of the privileged heterosupremacist class.

People need to wake up. There is no "moral implication" of gay sex, gay relationships, gay people. Love between two people is not immoral. Subjugating them into a separate class with fewer rights under the law IS immoral.

There were Roman emperors who have married men. It just wasn't recognized legally. But ceremonies certainly existed (or it wouldn't have been outlawed when Christianity became the state religion). Same in some periods in China. The American Indians also recognized and sometimes revered people who didn't fit into typical gender roles.

But of course history and tradition can't be a justification for being stagnant. If it were, nothing would ever change. But societies change all the time. Mankind also practiced slavery for thousands of years. Entire economies were based on it, but it was still wrong. We eventually changed and outlawed it, despite all the history.

And the decision to have children should be selfish. People should have children because they want them, not because society somehow demands it from them or to make other people feel better. It's not like we are danger of dying out.

@ Bernard William.
Ummm, nope, was never molested or touched...but have known I was Gay since age 5 when I started noticing other boys were a lot cuter than the girls.
Raised in a very fundamentalist religion with strong parental role models....still turned out Gay.
Oh and science hasn't found the gene yet but also hasn't dismissed the idea. There is alos the theory that it's homonal in the mother during pregnancy....but regardless, just because we can't explain it doesn't give anyone else the right to deny me and all LGBT peoples their rights.
I didn't choose to be Gay, but you DID choose to be a bigot.

@Bernard William -
I always found this kind of argument fascinating. No we don't know everything responsible for why homosexuality came about in the human species. We haven't identified a genetic link that would make physical the inherent trait of human same sex attraction. However, just because we haven't gotten to a point that we know without a shadow of a doubt what makes homosexuality, that doesn't somehow prove your theory.

The theory that gays just decide one day to choose to be gay is several times less proven than the popularly accepted mainstream theory. Also, it's not like we're talking about the origin of the universe. We're talking about people who are alive today that are giving anecdotal evidence of their childhoods and testimony of the nature of their sexuality. They're gay, that makes them the experts. Yet, somehow we must assume that their testimony means nothing - that several millions of people are just liars?

That's not even what bothered me most about your comment. What gets me is the arrogence that is so obviously apparent in your attitude. It's easy for you to believe that you know these people better than they know themselves. The truth is gay people have been giving you the same answer for nearly 60 years. You keep asking the question over and over because the answers we've given are not the answers that you want. Why don't YOU be 'honest with yourself.'

@ MustDoTheHomework Here's something YOU may not have considered. You said, "Why would it not make sense, then, that we as humans must also take the time to teach our young in the areas of masculinity and femininity and their accompanying sexualities?" Then, I ask you, do you ignore that areas of masculinity and femininity have been socially constructed by those in power? There is no consensus as to when exactly gender expectations like the ones you are inferring started, as they have varied culturally according to time and place in different societies. So your "making sense" is not more valid than that of those with a different interpretation. And you are not the holder of the ultimate truth as to be able to impose what those areas should be like. You can only offer and propose and hope that you will be validated. Mighty doesn't make it righteous, just like quantity is not the same as quality. You seem to rely on what has been the pattern (which means you support the status quo) but ignore that if it has been this way is not because it is necessarily the right way. It is only a reflection of what has been imposed so far through means of coercion and not just value consensus or even charismatic authority. I see other people like you relying so much in biological or psychological theories and arguments as if that was the ultimate truth. It still takes interpretation to explain results out of any research methodology. I did the homework.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Annie Linskey covers state politics and government for The Baltimore Sun. Previously, as a City Hall reporter, she wrote about the corruption trial of Mayor Sheila Dixon and kept a close eye on city spending. Originally from Connecticut, Annie has also lived in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, where she reported on war crimes tribunals and landmines. She lives in Canton.

John Fritze has covered politics and government at the local, state and federal levels for more than a decade and is now The Baltimore Sun’s Washington correspondent. He previously wrote about Congress for USA TODAY, where he led coverage of the health care overhaul debate and the 2010 election. A native of Albany, N.Y., he currently lives in Montgomery County.

Julie Scharper covers City Hall and Baltimore politics. A native of Baltimore County, she graduated from The Johns Hopkins University in 2001 and spent two years teaching in Honduras before joining The Baltimore Sun. She has followed the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Pa., in the year after a schoolhouse massacre, reported on courts and crime in Anne Arundel County, and chronicled the unique personalities and places of Baltimore City and its surrounding counties.